What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Albion]

You really didn't answer what I responded to...and that's concerning how many Anglican bibles purchased today by its members don't include the Apocrypha.

Lammchen is correct. Josiah's claim was that the Anglican Church "has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible." Present tense. "A set," he said, of 80 books. "Official," he also said.

The claim was not that editions of the KJV were, for a certain period in the past, printed along with the Apocrypha included. And he presented as evidence a phony version of Article VI of the Church's statement of belief!

And that came with a guess from out of left field as to why KJV Bibles are NOT, in fact, printed along with the (uninspired) Apocrypha. This despite his claim that they have 80 books.

This was it: "Friend, read article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Check the links offered here. Note the first that states, 'There are 80 books in the King James Bible.' Yes, many sold in the USA only have 66 but that's because most that buy the KJV are not Anglicans and thus the publishing houses don't unique those but the Authorized King James had and has and always had had 80 books in it."

None of that is true. The facts have all been explained several times over and are easily verified.






.

 

[Lamb]

I'm looking at this site http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html and it nowhere states that the Apocrypha is included in their bible. It merely lists some of the Apocryphal books that are for useful reading only.

 

[Josiah]

I'm looking at this site http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html and it nowhere states that the Apocrypha is included in their bible. It merely lists some of the Apocryphal books that are for useful reading only.

Which is it, Lamm? Does it include the "Apocrypha" or not? Does it nowhere include it or does it merely include it?

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

It lists (by name) exactly 39 OT books. It lists by name 14 Deuterocanonical books. It references (but does not name or number) what is clearly meant as 27 NT books. My math says 39+14+27=80. The EXACT number of books listed (by name) in the table of contents of the AV Bible, the "Books" the AV says it "CONTAINS."

Now, Lamm, IF your point is that it says 14 of these are "Books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine" (Deutercanonal rather than canonical) then of course that's a point I'm been STRESSING - so very boldly and clearly - throughout this thread beginning with my first post here as you yourself noted. It's why I noted consistently that while the Anglican Bible includes a (unique) 80 books, a (unique) 14 of them are DEUTEROcanonical. This thread is about DEUTEROcanonical books (what the Anglican Church - and commonly in English - we call "Apocrypha") it's not about the 66 books commonly accepted as canonical (those are included in virtually all Christian Bibles since the mid 5th Century anyway).

 

[Josiah]

Lammchen is correct. Josiah's claim was that the Anglican Church "has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible." Present tense. "A set," he said, of 80 books. "Official," he also said.

And this is correct. The Anglican Church has not rescended Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It still includes exactly 80 books. And it's still official and formal. And will remain so until the Anglican Communion removes Article VI

why KJV Bibles are NOT, in fact, printed along with the (uninspired) Apocrypha.

Many are.

Of course not all. You can buy a tome with only the KJV of the Psalms in it (and just 150 of them) - it's for sale, you can own one. Does the reality that book sellers have a tome with only the Psalms in them prove that Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles has been removed and now the KJV only has one book in it, Psalms? Of course not. Does it mean that the 1611 AV only had ONE book in it (and the Table of Contents was errant)? No. It just means publishers can print and sell any subset the customers will buy. And they can sell the whole thing, with all 80 included, as is also the case. Friend, you can buy an ESV or RSV or NIV with only 27 Books contained in it, that reality does not mean that ANY denomination has officially declared there to be only 39 books. Come on, my friend.


BTW, I've worshiped at an Episcopal church. They had Bibles in the pews. They had 80 books in them.

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-K...uthorized+version+bible&qid=1576864732&sr=8-5 80 books included.




Friend, the Anglican Lectionary includes readings from these 14 books ("Lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha with these lessons being read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament") . The official Episcopal website opens its page about the Bible with these verbatim words,"The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (See https//episcopalchurch.org/bible), the official site putting it MUCH more strongly than I have here. I think you have a MUCH, MUCH bigger disagreement with the Episcopal Church.

Here's what I've said: The Bible of the Anglican Church has 80 books included - a unique set of 14 of which are embraced only as DEUTERcanonical, included for the lectionary, as possible sermon texts, as useful for learning and inspiration, but not as canonical, not as the verbally inspired, inerrant, inscripturated (Scripture) words of God and thus not as the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine. Essentially, the Anglican Church officially/formally adopted a two-tiered Bible - some books (66) as canonical and a unique set of 14 as deutercanonical. Luther PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY did much the same thing (only with 66 + 8 - a different "set"of deutercanonical) - it was a fairly common view at the time - but the Lutheran Church never officially adopted this (NOTHING like Article 6 of the 39 Anglican Articles appears in the Lutheran Confessions) whereas the Anglican Church did and does.




.

 

[Lamb]

Which is it, Lamm? Does it include the "Apocrypha" or not? Does it nowhere include it or does it merely include it?

The site doesn't state that their bible includes it. It says what it says which is a comment on the usefulness of other books: And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: That quote does not state that it's what's included in their bible, it's only a reference to those others.

 

[Josiah]

The site doesn't state that their bible includes it. It says what it says which is a comment on the usefulness of other books: And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: That quote does not state that it's what's included in their bible, it's only a reference to those others.

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]


I'm confused. You posted, "It nowhere states that the Apocrypha is included in their bible. It merely lists some of the Apocryphal books that are for useful reading only." So, does it include the Apocrypha or not? The question is not whether they are included for a certain purpose or not (everyone here fully agrees on that point) the issue is this: are they listed, are they included - even if just to fill up space and justify charging more for the book (LOL)?


NO ONE HERE disagrees that this unique set of 14 books - specifically listed by name - are "canonical." Everyone here agrees they are embraced/included/listed as DEUTEROcanonical (or as some like to say, "Apocrypha"), I have STRESSED - constantly, repeatedly, often with capitol and/or embolden letters that this unique set of 14 books are included as DEUTEROcanonical (and defined what that means repeatedly) so the issue is not that, but whether they are INCLUDED. As I read Article 6, I see them listed. For EXACTLY what I stressed repeatedly they are listed for. Called "Books" (with a capitol "B"). I also note that the Table of CONTENTS of the AV (a picture of which has been posted here a few times) specificially includes AS CONTAINED IN, these 14 books. Listed by name. Printed fully and verbatim therein. It does not merely "reference some" as claimed, it CONTAINS them in the tome. Many AV tomes today still do.


I've been to Episcopal churches. All the pew Bibles I've seen have 80 books in them.



Lamm, consider this: The Anglican Lectionary includes readings from these 14 books ("Lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha with these lessons being read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament") . The official Episcopal website opens it's page about the Bible with these words,"The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (See https//episcopalchurch.org/bible), the official site putting it MUCH more strongly than I have here. Lamm, here - verbatim - is what the official Anglican Catechism states, "The Holy Scriptures Q. What are the Holy Scriptures? A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." Notice also the last 4 words. Our Anglican friend knows this.

Again, Lamm, NO ONE HERE is questioning the intended USE of the Anglican Church's very unique set of exactly 14.... the Thirty Nine Articles INCLUDES them as deuterocanonical (as I've have consistently, always, right from the beginning stressed as boldly and clearly as possible). But it seems remarkable to me some claim the Thirty-Nine Articles don't mention them and that the AV did NOT contain them (as the Table of Contents states and as we see them printed out) but only REFERENCES them. Friend, this unique set of 14 ARE in many AV Bibles .... readings from them ARE in the Lectionary of the Anglican Church.... sermons ARE preached from them (that UNIQUE set of 14).... they are included. For exactly the reason Article VI says and I have so consistently and clearly affirmed.


Lamm, here's my consistent position on this: The Bible of the Anglican Church has 80 books included - a unique set of 14 of which are embraced only as DEUTERcanonical, included for the lectionary, as possible sermon texts, as useful for learning and inspiration, but not as canonical, not as the verbally inspired, inerrant, inscripturated (Scripture) words of God and thus not as the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine. Essentially, the Anglican Church officially/formally adopted a two-tiered Bible - some books (66) as canonical and a unique set of 14 as deutercanonical. Luther PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY did much the same thing (only with 66 + 8 - a different "set"of deutercanonical) - it was a fairly common view at the time - but the Lutheran Church never officially adopted this (NOTHING like Article 6 of the 39 Anglican Articles appears in the Lutheran Confessions) whereas the Anglican Church did and does.


A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours.





.

 

[Lamb]

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]


I'm confused. You posted, "It nowhere states that the Apocrypha is included in their bible. It merely lists some of the Apocryphal books that are for useful reading only." So, does it include the Apocrypha or not? The question is not whether they are included for a certain purpose or not (everyone here fully agrees on that point) the issue is this: are they listed, are they included - even if just to fill up space and justify charging more for the book (LOL)?


NO ONE HERE disagrees that this unique set of 14 books - specifically listed by name - are "canonical." Everyone here agrees they are embraced/included/listed as DEUTEROcanonical (or as some like to say, "Apocrypha"), I have STRESSED - constantly, repeatedly, often with capitol and/or embolden letters that this unique set of 14 books are included as DEUTEROcanonical (and defined what that means repeatedly) so the issue is not that, but whether they are INCLUDED. As I read Article 6, I see them listed. For EXACTLY what I stressed repeatedly they are listed for. Called "Books" (with a capitol "B"). I also note that the Table of CONTENTS of the AV (a picture of which has been posted here a few times) specificially includes AS CONTAINED IN, these 14 books. Listed by name. Printed fully and verbatim therein. It does not merely "reference some" as claimed, it CONTAINS them in the tome. Many AV tomes today still do.


I've been to Episcopal churches. All the pew Bibles I've seen have 80 books in them.



Lamm, consider this: The Anglican Lectionary includes readings from these 14 books ("Lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha with these lessons being read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament") . The official Episcopal website opens it's page about the Bible with these words,"The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (See https//episcopalchurch.org/bible), the official site putting it MUCH more strongly than I have here. Lamm, here - verbatim - is what the official Anglican Catechism states, "The Holy Scriptures Q. What are the Holy Scriptures? A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." Notice also the last 4 words. Our Anglican friend knows this.

Again, Lamm, NO ONE HERE is questioning the intended USE of the Anglican Church's very unique set of exactly 14.... the Thirty Nine Articles INCLUDES them as deuterocanonical (as I've have consistently, always, right from the beginning stressed as boldly and clearly as possible). But it seems remarkable to me some claim the Thirty-Nine Articles don't mention them and that the AV did NOT contain them (as the Table of Contents states and as we see them printed out) but only REFERENCES them. Friend, this unique set of 14 ARE in many AV Bibles .... readings from them ARE in the Lectionary of the Anglican Church.... sermons ARE preached from them (that UNIQUE set of 14).... they are included. For exactly the reason Article VI says and I have so consistently and clearly affirmed.


Lamm, here's my consistent position on this: The Bible of the Anglican Church has 80 books included - a unique set of 14 of which are embraced only as DEUTERcanonical, included for the lectionary, as possible sermon texts, as useful for learning and inspiration, but not as canonical, not as the verbally inspired, inerrant, inscripturated (Scripture) words of God and thus not as the rule/canon/norma normans for doctrine. Essentially, the Anglican Church officially/formally adopted a two-tiered Bible - some books (66) as canonical and a unique set of 14 as deutercanonical. Luther PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY did much the same thing (only with 66 + 8 - a different "set"of deutercanonical) - it was a fairly common view at the time - but the Lutheran Church never officially adopted this (NOTHING like Article 6 of the 39 Anglican Articles appears in the Lutheran Confessions) whereas the Anglican Church did and does.


A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours.





.

I don't see the site saying that it is included in the Bible. I see a reference to the Apocrypha but I believe you're inferring more than what is actually written with a claim that they include it in their bible. It's not mandatory and it's not explicitly stated.

 

[Josiah]

Lamm, consider this:

The Anglican Lectionary includes readings from these 14 books ("Lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha with these lessons being read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament") .

The official Episcopal website opens it's page about the Bible with these words,"The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (See episcopalchurch.org/bible), the official site putting it MUCH more strongly than I have here. What is "as well as?"

The official Anglican Catechism states (and I quote verbatim), "The Holy Scriptures Q. What are the Holy Scriptures? A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." Notice also the last 4 words. What is "included in the Bible?"

I don't see the site saying that it is included in the Bible.

You stated it "merely" lists them. Well, then, it lists "them." And it states "them" as exactly (and uniquely) 14 in number, listed by name. Yes, as deuterocanonical (as I've stressed so boldly and consistently and constantly - everyone here agrees with that) but it lists "them." Under the Article entitled "Holy Scripture."

They are included in the AV of 1611. The Table of Contents is proof. A picture of that has been provided several times. And then all 14 of them are printed out and included in that Bible. The Table of Contents does not refer to them, that Bible contains them.

They are included in the Book of Common Prayer as Bible readings and in the Lectionary of the Anglican Church.

The Official Catechism of the Anglican Church states, and I quote verbatim, "Q. What are the Holy Scriptures? A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." Please notice the words, especially the last 4. Now, does it say the unique 14 books are "Scripture?" Not exactly (although the Episcopal Church does), and of course I never said that, what I said is they are included is the Bible (for Anglicans), which is verbatim what the Anglican Catechism states. When someone quotes verbatim from the Lutheran Catechism, typically Lutherans agree that's the position of the Lutheran church.

I see a reference to the Apocrypha but I believe you're inferring more than what is actually written with a claim that they include it in their bible. It's not mandatory and it's not explicitly stated.

Lamm, I didn't infer anything. I said they are listed books and are included. And that they are not canonical but are deuterocanonical. I'm agreeing with Article 6 and with the Official Anglican Catechism. Now, here's NOT what I said but what the official website of The Episcopal Church states: "The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." I gave the reference above. Note the words carefully. Perhaps our friend and brother's disagreement is with his denomination, not me?? Perhaps.


I have not once used the word "mandatory" and I don't know what you mean by that. I never said it was "mandatory" to ... well.... do anything or that well anything is "mandatory."




A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours.



.

 

[Andrew]

Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) circa 70-96 AD

Chapter 55. Examples of Such Love.

To bring forward some examples from among the heathen: Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow citizens [from destruction]. Many have gone forth from their own cities, that so sedition might be brought to an end within them. We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others. Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Judith 8:30 Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.

 

[Albion]

I don't see the site saying that it is included in the Bible. I see a reference to the Apocrypha but I believe you're inferring more than what is actually written with a claim that they include it in their bible. It's not mandatory and it's not explicitly stated.

In fact, most of what is being thrown at you are just plain lies, Lamm. However, it is also fair to say that some of it is a result of ignorance about the nature, beliefs and history of Anglicanism.

Here's just one example: the claim was made that the "official" Anglican Bible was this or that, when in fact, Anglican churches do not HAVE an official Bible. Not even the venerable KJV. Probably half of Josiah's claims fall on that fact alone!

But when the disinformation is being spewed out fast and furious, who can correct all of it in a few posts, especially when the claims are constantly being reworded by the author so as to permit him to insist that he hadn't written what he actually did?

Sooner or later, it's not worth the effort anymore, not when there is no willingness to listen. :wave:






.

 

[Josiah]

The official Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican church states "them" as exactly (and uniquely) 14 in number, listed by name. Yes, as deuterocanonical (as I've stressed so boldly and consistently and constantly - everyone here agrees with that) but it lists "them." Under the Article entitled "Holy Scripture." It lists 39 OT books (by name) and 14 Deuterocanoncial books (by name) and then refers to the "usual New Testament Books" so unless my math is wrong, 39+14+27 is 80. It is not true that Article VI does not mention 14 Apocrapha books but ONLY 39 OT and 27 NT under the heading of "Holy Scripture."


They are included in the AV of 1611. The Table of Contents is proof. A picture of that has been provided several times. And then all 14 of them are printed out and included in that Bible. The Table of Contents does not refer to them, that Bible contains them.


They are included in the Book of Common Prayer as Bible readings and in the Lectionary of the Anglican Church.


The Catechism of the Anglican Church states, and I quote verbatim, "Q. What are the Holy Scriptures? A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." Please notice the words, especially the last 4. Not the words "Bible.... Apocrypha.... included in the Bible." (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html#The Holy Scriptures).


Lamm, I said they are listed books and are included. And that they are not canonical but are deuterocanonical. I'm agreeing with Article 6 and with the Official Anglican Catechism.


Now, here's NOT what I said but it's meaningful to note exactly, verbatim, word-or-word what the official website of The Episcopal Church states: "The Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testament, as well as some apocryphal texts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (epistcopalchurch.org/bible) Note the words.


.

In fact, most of what is being thrown at you are just plain lies, Lamm.

I'm surprised you'd make this personal.... and accuse me specifically is LYING (not misunderstanding but lying). I'm sad about that. And MYSTIFIED what I could have said to cause such personal bitterness... to two who have been good friends for many years. Sad.


The Thirty-Nine Articles (as we all known) list BY NAME 39 OT and 14 Deuterocanonical books (53 by my math) and then references the "customary" New Testament ones (not named or numbered but I think it good to take that as 27). 30+14+27 =80, I think. That's the OFFICIAL Bible - those books - according to Article 6 of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles (unless you hold it's lying). Also that you think the Table of Contents of the 1611 AV is lying and that it did not contain the Apocrypha but according to you only REFERENCED them, not contained/included them. An actual picture of the page has been provided, as well as websites confirming the content of this Bible.


You may choose to not accept the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Anglican Catechism.... you may choose to disagree with your denomination in its website... you may choose to disagree with the Table of Contents and the books included in the AV of 1611. I don't argue your right there. I might even agree with your disagreement with Anglicanism. But it's a case of you not agreeing, not anyone is specifically "lying." Come on. I sincerely don't know what is motivating you and why you are so upset by this inclusion of the Anglican Church's unique Apocrypha.


Friend, I never said that EVERY TOME owned by someone baptized in an Anglican Church has 80 books in it. But the official Statement of the Anglican Church DOES have an official statement about Holy Scriptures and its Bible. It's Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles and all who can read sees that it LISTS BY NAME the 39 OT and 14 Apocrypha books, then throws in the NT. It's all there in black and white words. The Catechism says the Anglican Bible often contains the Anglican Apocrypha. It's right there in black-and-white words. We see the Episcopal Church's statement on it (quoted verbatim above). We know the Anglican Church includes readings from those 14 in it's Lectionary (Bible readings). Maybe your parish doesn't have Bibles at all but only uses powerpoint for the readings.... maybe your own personal Bible is a Good News Bible with only the NT in it. Fine, but not what we're talking about. I'm looking at Article 6. I'm looking that the Catechism. I'm looking at the Table of CONTENTS and the Books contained IN the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible for the Church of England. And I see 14 Apocrapha books INCLUDED.


Maybe you could follow me and quote - verbatim - statements from the 39 Articles and the Anglican Catechism and from the official website of The Episcopal Church that countradicts something I've specifically posted.... I've posted verbatim quotes from your denomination to verify what I've said, perhaps you can produce the same that proves I'm "lying" as you charge. Quote verbatim statements from the 39 Articles and Catechism that prove I'm specifically "lying." I gave official Anglican verbatim quotes.... how about you?







.

 

[Lamb]

Josiah, I have no bitterness toward you but I see that you're pushing to insist that the Anglicans have adopted a specific bible that will always include the Apocrypha. There is no such bible that exists that Anglicans are required to have. Their official catechism says that bibles will often include books from the Apocrypha but that in no way mandates that their denomination has adopted the Apocrypha as a necessity for a bible and that's what Albion and I see you saying over and over.

 

[Josiah]

There is no such bible that exists that Anglicans are required to have.

Friend, I never remotely said there is. I've never mentioned "required" or "mandated" or anything about anything Anglicans should or should not do or own.at's entirely irrelevant to the topic here.

What I said is that the Thirty Nine Articles (the Anglican Church's "Confessions") has an article entitled "Holy Scripture" that defines what is and is not the Bible of the Anglican Church. It lists (by name) 53 Books and then embraces the "customary" NT (27 Books), It's right there. I gave you a verbatim quote from the Anglican Catechism and it specifically states the unique set of 14 Apocrapha Books ARE a part of their Bible. I just quoted these verbatim.... and noted it says specifically "INCLUDED" and "BIBLE." This verbatim from the Anglican Confessions and Catechism. If someone quoted, verbatim, right from our Lutheran Confessions and Catechism, would you accept it as the Lutheran position? AND I went to the official website of the Episcopal Church - the offical website - and noted what it says about this. If I quoted verbatim from the LCMS website, would you accept the verbatim words as the LCMS position?

that in no way mandates

Again, I never once mentioned anything being mandated by anyone for anything.

as a necessity for a bible

I never mention anything being "necessary" for anything or anyone. Nor did the verbatim quotes I shared from their Confessions and Catechism or his denomination's official website. Nor is that the issue here.

you saying over and over.

Odd. I've never once so much as even mentioned ANYTHING as "mandated" or "required" or "necessary" (words not once appearing in any of my posts here).
Never said. About anything. For anyone. Not once, much less not "over and over."
It's not the issue here and is irrelevant to the issue here.
What I said is what the Anglican Confessions, Catechism and website verbatim state. I quoted them word-for-word with referrences. So far, largely ignored.
What I said is that The Anglican Authorized Bible of 1611 included the unique set of 14 Apocrypha books (and a picture of that list of contents was provided)




.

 

[Lamb]

It's right there. I gave you a verbatim quote from the Anglican Catechism and it specifically states the unique set of 14 Apocrapha Books ARE a part of their Bible.

Josiah, you're getting hung up on words and I don't mean to flame you but you're not getting what Albion has said about all of this and when I step in to help explain you get stuck on terms I've used instead of the concept. I've bolded what you wrote above. HERE is the reason why Albion has said you are wrong in what you've been writing...they don't have a bible that is soley an Anglican bible. So what you've written above makes it sound as if they have a bible that Anglicans go to because you read in their catechism a statement that the apocrypha can be included in their readings. That in no way implies that there is an Anglican bible. So when you say ARE a part of their Bible you are incorrect in saying such a thing because it simply does not exist.

 

[Josiah]

So when you say ARE a part of their Bible you are incorrect in saying such a thing because it simply does not exist.

Okay. If one reads all I've posted, it's obvious what is mean is "they are part of ITS Bible." I made it clear that publishers can publish whatever they want and customers can buy whatever they want. All the verbatim quotes I provided (from their Confessions Catechism and Website) all speak of the Bible of the Anglican Church. And that is what I've been addressing. I stated that ANGLICANS can own, read and buy whatever they want. The quotes I provided are not from individuals or customers or publishing houses but from the Anglican CHURCH about its AUTHORIZED Bible.

Again, I proved verbatim, official, word-for-word quotes from the Confessions, Catechism and Website of the Anglican Church. All about ITS Bible. So far, mostly ignored. Even siad to be lies. oWhat does the Anglican Church say about the Anglican Bible? I quoted it. It's been dismissed or ignored or called lies. IF someone asked about a Lutheran Church belief, and they QUOTED verbatim from our Confessions, Luther's Small Catechism, the Our Beliefs section of the LCMS Website and verbatim noted a point, would you argue that's thus NOT the position of The Lutheran Church? Yeah, I get your point, there are likely lots of Lutherans who don't hold to that but then that's not the issue, is it?

IF I stated "over and over" that Anglicans "must" "necessary" "required" "mandated" - as claimed - then it would be easy to find my using those words "over and over." Would it not? What I said is what I said..... what I did not say I did not say. Fair? If someone thought, "Yeah, I wonder if he MEANS something he's not SAYING" they could ask. No one did.

 

[Lamb]

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. ,

Perhaps if you had made this statement clearer there wouldn't be much of an argument. Upon first reading it seems as if you're saying that the Anglicans has its own unique set. If you're referring to the EOs then you should have been more specific.

This is why this thread has taken such a side track when communication should have been clearer in the first place.

 

[Josiah]

Upon first reading it seems as if you're saying that the Anglicans has its own unique set.

Except in your quote of me, I didn't say anything about Anglicans, did I? Perhaps the confusion was because what I stated was changed to something I did not?

This is why this thread has taken such a side track when communication should have been clearer in the first place.

IMO, it would be very difficult if not impossible to be clearer. It's just a LOT of what I posted has been ignored.... a LOT has been imposed that I never remotely said (such as "mandated" "necessary" "required" "must" and MUCH else)....

I MY experience, when something is not understood, it's often better to ask questions than to assume, and not say someone is "lying" when what they stated was in fact accurate and more than supported by verbatim, official quotes from the denomination.

I'm sorry I was not fully understood.... I went to some lengths and took much time to be clear.... and I'm sure YOU read every word I posted and considered it. But it's hard when people don't.... and when much assuming is being done and when words are deleted and replaced with words never said - then that substituted idea blasted.

I agree..... I probably should have made a very long (to the max space allowed) post THE FIRST TIME and used the word "included" instead of "accepted" in the first post or two. But honestly, I didn't think what I posted would find any disagreement. I think it is universally known that the Anglican Church DOES have a unique Apocrypha - just like every other denominatiion that has one. Why someone was so deeply and powerfully offended by that STILL amazes me. If anyone can count, they can count the number of such books the Anglican Church has in its Thirty Nine Articles and in its Authorized Version of 1611 - whether any Anglican agrees or not with the Thirty Nine Articles, the Catechism, the Episcopal Website or not is entirely irrelevant to the point I made.


Well.... I'll try EVEN HARDER to be more complete and clearer in my posts.... and I hope readers will assume and substitute less and perhaps ask more questions if my chosen words are not clear as to their meaning. Fair advise for us all?





To return to the issue....



[MENTION=873]NathanH83[/MENTION]


As I mentioned a long time ago in this thread...... before the weird diversion..... Here's the problem with your question and the thread..... With all DUE RESPECT to what I'm SURE you meant as a valid, direct question.... and a good one


1. You use the term "Apocrypha" as if there is some universal understanding of what you are talking about. THERE IS NOT. Of the claimed 10,000 denominations on the planet right now, there are not even TWO that understand that term the same way, as referring to the SAME block of material in the same manner. Of those who in some sense accept some books that Calvin did not accept in the 16th Century, NO TWO denominations agree on WHICH books that includes. Before we can even begin to discuss "the Apocrypha", you'd need to define WHAT books you are talking about. If there was a thread on "are these good colleges?" Would we not first need to state exactly WHICH colleges we are and are NOT talking about? Luther spoke of 8. The Anglican Church speaks of 14. The post-Trent Catholic Church speaks of 7... and so on.


2. You left open HOW they might "belong." Different denominations have different stances there. As historical? As worthy to be read? As qualifying to be in the Lectionary and as sermon texts? To be used as SUPPORTIVE but not normative? To only be inspirational and informational? To be used as the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice? Belong... HOW? In what capacity? Different denominations embraces "them" variously.



The Roman Catholic Church now accepts 7 books (a number NO OTHER DENOMINATION ON THE PLANET IN ALL WORLD HISTORY AGREES WITH) are equal to the other 66 in every sense, but it did not say so until the Council of Florence (unofficially) and the Council of Trent (officially) in the 16th Century. But I know of no denomination other than that single one that holds to that.

The Reformed/Calvinist Churches reject all... and generally for any purpose.

The Lutheran Confessions don't take a stance about ANY so called "Apocraphya" or Deuterocanonical books, in fact the Lutheran Confessions numerate and list NONE at all. EIGHT (beyond the 66) are included in his German translation but only because they were typically included in Catholic tomes in Germany at that time and he was producing a translation for Germans. He gave his own PERSONAL OPINION of this exact corpus of EIGHT books - but this is not the position of the Lutheran Church (it doesn't have one). Luther's Translation remained in use well into the 20th Century (often translated into other languages, including English) and I understand it continued to include those EIGHT books.


- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

What is the main reason why Catholics believe it does belong?

Catholics believe that some of the Apocryphal books belong in the Bible because they are also divinely inspired and useful for the same reasons that the 66 books in the Protestant Bible are useful. They believe this because the teachings found in those books agree with the “traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church (which they believe have been handed down by the Early Church Fathers to the Church.)

Why do the books of the Apocrypha not belong in the Bible?
The Bible claims that all scripture is “God breathed” and the early Church came up with criteria for separating that which was held in the same level of authority as the Old Testament canon and that which was not. To be held in esteem as “God breathed” scripture, a work must have been written by an Apostle or a companion of the Apostles and it must have been recognized as such by most if not all of the churches then in existence. At a time when there were still people alive in places like Rome and Corinth and Colossi that still remembered when the Apostles authenticated their own letters, the four books that we know as the Gospels had already been gathered together and circulated as THE complete Gospel throughout the churches and was read and used just as we use the modern Bible. Other Gospels were known to exist, but were rejected as false by the people that were there to know the difference between what the Apostles taught verbally and what they did not teach. At the same time, the Letters of Paul (ending with Hebrews) had also been gathered together and circulated as a single, authoritative document with the weight of scripture. That leaves us with a VERY SOLID Apostolic foundation against which to compare any other New Testament Era writing to determine whether or not it agrees with Apostolic teaching (which is the teaching of Christ written down by His chosen messengers).

Thus for Protestants, the Bible is a collection of “God breathed” writings and the test of any proposed book to be included in the Bible is agreement (non-contradiction) with the teaching of the “Law, Prophets and Histories” of the centuries old Jewish canon and the “4 Gospels” and “writings of Paul” from the New Covenant Apostles. Any book which agrees with the canon MAY be included and any book that contradicts MUST NOT be included.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[Lamb]

Except in your quote of me, I didn't say anything about Anglicans, did I? Perhaps the confusion was because what I stated was changed to something I did not?

Yes, you did say something about Anglicans. Here is your quote again:

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible.

I've told you how it could be interpreted in 2 different ways. In your quote above you're saying that the Anglican church has its own unique set, thus its own bible or that part of your statement refers to the EO. Which is it please?

 

[Josiah]

Yes, you did say something about Anglicans. Here is your quote again:

Friend, you prove again I said NOTHING about Anglicans. I said "The Anglican Church." The quote never so much as mentions Anglicans.


Friend, if someone said, "The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod holds that it is permissible to baptize children," what does that mean? That all 72 million people who were baptized in a Lutheran church somewhere hold that it is mandated, required, necessitated to be baptized as a child and all were?" No. The issue is the LCMS. And where would you suggest we go for the answer? The Lutheran Confessions? Luther's Small Catechism? Perhaps the official website of the LCMS in it's Our Beliefs section? Me, too. So, what I was accused of lying about ("Lie" - to intentionally speak a falsehood known to be false) about what the Anglican Church issue, I went to the Thirty-Nine ARticles (the Confession of the Anglican Church), article 6, entited "Holy Scriptures" and quoted it. Verbatim. Then I went to the Catechism of the Anglican Church to the section entitled "Holy Scriptures" and quoted that verbatim and I went to the official website of The Episcopal Church in the USA (the Anglican church here) to it's "Our Beliefs" section and then "The Bible" and quoted that, verbatim. It was ignored.

In your quote above you're saying that the Anglican church has its own unique set, thus its own bible

Correct. I said nothing about Anglicans.

Yes, I proved that the Anglican Church accepts EXACTLY 14 Deutercanonical books. I proved that in two ways from official Anglican sources. Yup. 14. Not 13 or 15 or 7 or 8 or 21. Listed by name. Officially. In their Confession... in the Table of Contents of the Authorized Bible and in many other places.

Yes, I asked our brother if he could list even one other church body that has EXACTLY 14. He could not. That's because there is no other body that accepts these exactly listed/named books and no others. One accepts 13.... one accepts 15.... no other accept 14. Which is why he could not give the name of any other church body with 14. If only one has that corpus of books, does that not mean - by definition - that it is a unique set? If I have 5 bunny rabbits... and no other person has 5 bunny rabbits, is it not true that I have a unique number of bunny rabbits?

And I quoted the official Anglican Catechism that says this set is often INCLUDED in their Bible. Those are the words it uses...."include" and "Bible." And two of us proved they were contained (NOT JUST REFERENCED as our friend stated) in the Anglican Authorized Bible of 1611. Note also what the official Anglican Website in it's Our Beliefs section says about this, read the quote. How, I sensed our friend was substituting the word 'Scripture' for where I said "Bible" and I noted that 9 times so far before that, I used the word "TOME" to stress in yet one more way, still another way, yet again, that I affirm boldly and clearly and consistently that the Anglican Church does NOT, in any sense, NOT include this unique set as CANONCIAL but only as DEUTEROcanonical (defined several times for him - exactly the way the Anglican Church does) or as APOCRYPHA (although note again what the Anglican Church website verbatim states).


I think I'm correct in saying the Anglican Church has included a UNIQUE set of Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. And I think I did exactly as you would if you were told you were specifically lying about a position of the LCMS. You would quote the Lutherans Confessions, the Lutheran Catechism and perhaps the official LCMS website's "Our Beliefs" page. That's exactly what I did here (and even more). I quoted their Thirty Nine Articles on this, their official Catechism on this very issue and the official Episcopal Website's "Our Belief's" page. It was ignored.



I have no idea why all the accusations and amazing diversions were made, the charge that I'm lying, etc. But note that the questions to me have been.... well.... not frequent, the requests for clarification not common.... and my verbatim quotes from official Anglican sources that fully support what I said (even MORE than I said) were ignored. And there seems to have been a LOT of "substitutions" - words I actually posted replaced with ones I did not, then those substituted words used to blast me for things I did not say, they deleted what I said and substituted something I never said. It leads to a mess. And sometimes the personal attacks seen here.

Yes, in a couple of places, better words could have been used on my part. Maybe on everyone's. Yes. Yes, my posts often are too short (I AM limited on time; I do have a life, lol). But again, I had NO IDEA what I was saying was going to be SO powerfully and personally offensive to anyone or even that most here would not already know that different denominations have different corpuses of Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books - often not only different in number but different in embrace. I'm STILL amazed.

I will try to make clearer and more complete posts. But what I think others might consider is to read the words THERE rather than substituting others. And if it is not clear what is meant by that WORD, ask. This is better than "inferring" and accusing others of lying. Don't you think?




.